SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Gregory M. Hamel

Last decided NHC Falls ChurchSep 2021
Decisions 1,561since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rates presented here compare the judge's performance against the broader bench at the NHC Falls Church hearing office. By examining the 1,561 decisions on record since 2016, you can see a baseline for how this judge has historically evaluated disability claims. This data provides a statistical foundation for understanding the local hearing environment, though every case is unique. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 47%
Decisions on record 1,561

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Hamel. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 24, 2021. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Hamel's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Hamel
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY21
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate (SSA's term: allowance rate) = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total decisions, which exclude dismissals.

Decision pattern

Since 2016, the approval rate for Gregory M. Hamel has shown a varied trend across 1,561 decisions. After starting at 44% in 2016, the rate increased to 52% in 2018 before stabilizing near 50% in 2020. The final year of data on record, 2021, saw a return to 44% over 133 decisions. This pattern shows that while the judge's approach has fluctuated, the volume of decisions provides a consistent look at his historical decision-making process.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Hamel's bench. Judge-specific preparation guidance requires a corpus of public Appeals Council decisions involving each judge, which we haven't built yet.

  • Bring a clean treating-physician record. Longitudinal primary-care or specialist notes spanning the disability period, with consistent symptom documentation, are typically the strongest evidence at hearing. A single month's records usually aren't enough.
  • Don't rely on consultative exams alone. If your medical evidence is built primarily around a one-time CE finding, expect detailed questioning. Supplement with treating-source statements where possible.
  • Prepare for daily-activity questions. Have honest, specific answers about a typical day. Answers that conflict with the medical record (in either direction) tend to hurt credibility.
  • Expect transferable-skills probing. A vocational expert will usually testify about jobs available to someone with your limitations. Your representative should be prepared to cross-examine.

Hearing scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the NHC Falls Church hearing office

The NHC Falls Church hearing office serves you if you are in the District of Columbia region. As the judge's most recent office on record as of September 2021, it represents a hub for disability hearings in the area. With 33 judges on the office's bench, you should be prepared for a variety of judicial approaches to evidence and testimony.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is NHC Falls Church

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 33 judges whose most recent office on record is the NHC Falls Church hearing office, with approval rates ranging from 29% to 85% on their since-2016 records. Because you cannot choose your judge, focusing on the strength of your medical evidence is the most effective way to prepare.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
1×
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants

Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.

Frequently asked questions